Soon after I got interested in wine, I read somewhere that buying three bottles of a particular wine, and then comparing them over time was a good approach. It's actually been quite interesting comparing Janet's and my individual reactions to the various trios. Here's a typical set of three notes, and the Parker review that encouraged me to buy the trio in the first place:

Parker 93. Only 250 cases of the 1989 Rioja Gran Reserva have been released. The last vintage that Remelluri declared a Gran Reserva was 1985. The 1989 exhibits an opaque garnet color, and a huge, provocative fragrance of hickory smoke, barbecue spices, chocolate, jammy black fruits, truffles, and herbs. The bouquet's immense complexity is followed by a wine of extraordinary power, richness, and body. Imagine a top Brunello di Montalcino aged in 100% new oak given an injection of steroids, and readers might have an image of just how rich and boldly-styled this Rioja has turned out. The wine boasts remarkable length, an unctuous texture, and plenty of tannin lurking beneath the layers of creamy, sweet (from ripeness, not sugar) fruit. Already stunning, this wine should drink well for a decade. This relatively young winery is one of the showcase producers for the newer style of Spanish reds - earlier bottling, small barrique aging, and an unmanipulated, artisanal style. I enjoyed Remelluri's debut releases, and the recent offerings have taken the intensity level to greater heights as the estate's vineyards have matured.

Bob
Am I allowed to say I prefer your notes more than Parkers? (especially your last one). The Parker note feels like a cross between WTN porn and a wine magazine type "advertising feature" telling you why you must buy this wine. Personally I do like to make up my own mind when reading a WTN and I think your final note is excellent in that respect, in that yes you liked it, but that came out in the note, rather than what felt in Parkers to be a number of lines inserted in order to hook you in to "needing to own" this wine.

Still, to his credit, you've enjoyed his recommendation and it's certainly turned out fine!

1. Janet always thought for herself -- she likes the wine or she doesn't and she has short, crisp ways of explaining why one way or the other.

2. My first two note are pretty derivative from Parker's -- I had read Parker for only a couple of months at that point, I had only been writing notes for a couple of years and I certainly was groping for an approach to tasting wines and writing tasting notes.

3. Today I seek out and continue to accept recommendations from other people -- but I have become much more like Janet in calling a wine the way I find it. Partly that comes from writing almost 20,000 tasting notes, I suppose, but I've also gained a bit of the self confidence that Janet always had.

I suppose this is a small example of why people who like to write personal journals like to do so -- you really can learn about yourself in quite a remarkable way.

One change: I almost never consider Parker's reccos any more -- I'm sure he's fine, but it's much more fun to try to understand why other people like particular wines. My note about the Girard Cabernet Franc suggested by Andrea Immer posted today is a very good example of my current approach.

In any event, thanks for your note -- I enjoyed thinking about the points you made very much.